Opposition to Gay Marriage - Any Basis Other Than Intolerance and Bigotry?

[rightwinger]

This country was founded on "liberty". That liberty was originally tempered with "responsibility". Where does homosexual marriage display "responsibility" to the country?

It displays "responsibility" to the country as much as straight marriage does. Therefore the 14th amendment comes into play as to how the government has to treat both groups.

What is next, the alcoholics declare they are a minority and demand "additional" rights to fit their lifestyle?

Alchoholics are allowed to marry anyone they wish....gays are not

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

What is next, the alcoholics declare they are a minority and demand "additional" rights to fit their lifestyle?

Same-sex couples are merely seeking equal access to existing laws, no ‘additional rights.’

If a person of the opposite sex agrees to marry without any other obligations, you may marry. That is equality. Because you decide that you are above others because of your choices and seek to legislate "respectibility" is discrimmination for all those that choose to live according to tradition.

Again, same-couples are not asking for anything ‘more,’ only equal access. The only legislation needed is to ensure the laws comply with the Constitution. And that a way of doing things is considered ‘traditional’ neither mitigates nor justifies a given state’s discriminatory practices:

“[T]he fact that the governing majority in a State has traditionally viewed a particular practice as immoral is not a sufficient reason for upholding a law prohibiting the practice; neither history nor tradition could save a law prohibiting miscegenation from constitutional attack.”

‘Tradition’ is therefore legally and constitutionally irrelevant.

It forces the laws to be inequitable; based on a person's choices, they can declare themselves a minority, and claim discrimmination where the law is changed to "force" acceptance of their choices. That would be against others' "rights", and they would claim discrimmination and "force" the law to be changed to protect their "special interests", and so on, and so on. The country would end up being taken back to a tribal state, because it would not be the law of the "land", it would be the law of the most powerful (wealthy, forceful, ruthless). Tell your children how you helped destroy the law for your own selfishness.

Incorrect. The courts have established a clear and succinct set of criteria as to what constitutes a ‘suspect class’ (a class suspected of being discriminated against) and what acts of the state merit strict scrutiny in the context of judicial review.

And that other groups may seek protection in the courts is not justification to discriminate against same-sex couples.

What are homosexuals? Can you tell one from the color of their skin…

Can you determine one’s religion from the color of his skin? Yet he receives First Amendment protection just the same.

Okay, now we are re-defining homosexuals as a "class"???????

Yes, per the Supreme Court:

“The second post-Bowers case of principal relevance is Romer v. Evans, 517 U.S. 620 (1996). There the Court struck down class-based legislation directed at homosexuals as a violation of the Equal Protection Clause. Romer invalidated an amendment to Colorado’s constitution which named as a solitary class persons who were homosexuals, lesbians, or bisexual either by “orientation, conduct, practices or relationships,” id., at 624 (internal quotation marks omitted), and deprived them of protection under state antidiscrimination laws. We concluded that the provision was “born of animosity toward the class of persons affected” and further that it had no rational relation to a legitimate governmental purpose.”

BTW, I have used no hatred against homosexuals. I have not petitioned for their elimination. I have just stated that they are not the same in a legal partnership and should not have "marriage" re-defined to fit their personal agenda.

And that is not their stated goal, there is no 'agenda' – and yet again: per the cited case law, they wish only equal access to the laws, nothing more, nothing less – the right of any person to marry another person of his choosing, regardless of gender.

***

The above citations were from Lawrence v. Texas (2003)

 

[logical4u]

It displays "responsibility" to the country as much as straight marriage does. Therefore the 14th amendment comes into play as to how the government has to treat both groups.

What is next, the alcoholics declare they are a minority and demand "additional" rights to fit their lifestyle?

Alchoholics are allowed to marry anyone they wish....gays are not

What if they are "homosexual" alcoholics?

 

[logical4u]

What is next, the alcoholics declare they are a minority and demand "additional" rights to fit their lifestyle?

Same-sex couples are merely seeking equal access to existing laws, no ‘additional rights.’

If a person of the opposite sex agrees to marry without any other obligations, you may marry. That is equality. Because you decide that you are above others because of your choices and seek to legislate "respectibility" is discrimmination for all those that choose to live according to tradition.

Again, same-couples are not asking for anything ‘more,’ only equal access. The only legislation needed is to ensure the laws comply with the Constitution. And that a way of doing things is considered ‘traditional’ neither mitigates nor justifies a given state’s discriminatory practices:

“[T]he fact that the governing majority in a State has traditionally viewed a particular practice as immoral is not a sufficient reason for upholding a law prohibiting the practice; neither history nor tradition could save a law prohibiting miscegenation from constitutional attack.”

‘Tradition’ is therefore legally and constitutionally irrelevant.


Incorrect. The courts have established a clear and succinct set of criteria as to what constitutes a ‘suspect class’ (a class suspected of being discriminated against) and what acts of the state merit strict scrutiny in the context of judicial review.

And that other groups may seek protection in the courts is not justification to discriminate against same-sex couples.



Can you determine one’s religion from the color of his skin? Yet he receives First Amendment protection just the same.

Okay, now we are re-defining homosexuals as a "class"???????

Yes, per the Supreme Court:

“The second post-Bowers case of principal relevance is Romer v. Evans, 517 U.S. 620 (1996). There the Court struck down class-based legislation directed at homosexuals as a violation of the Equal Protection Clause. Romer invalidated an amendment to Colorado’s constitution which named as a solitary class persons who were homosexuals, lesbians, or bisexual either by “orientation, conduct, practices or relationships,” id., at 624 (internal quotation marks omitted), and deprived them of protection under state antidiscrimination laws. We concluded that the provision was “born of animosity toward the class of persons affected” and further that it had no rational relation to a legitimate governmental purpose.”

BTW, I have used no hatred against homosexuals. I have not petitioned for their elimination. I have just stated that they are not the same in a legal partnership and should not have "marriage" re-defined to fit their personal agenda.

And that is not their stated goal, there is no 'agenda' – and yet again: per the cited case law, they wish only equal access to the laws, nothing more, nothing less – the right of any person to marry another person of his choosing, regardless of gender.

***

The above citations were from Lawrence v. Texas (2003)

Seriously, this is like arguing that a man has a "right" to have his child aborted. After all, wouldn't that be "pro choice"?

 

[rightwinger]

What is next, the alcoholics declare they are a minority and demand "additional" rights to fit their lifestyle?

Alchoholics are allowed to marry anyone they wish....gays are not

What if they are "homosexual" alcoholics?

Then they are being denied the right to marry because of their sexuality not their alcoholism

 

[Dr Grump]

Try again. You are claiming "discrimmination" based on choice. There is no protection under the Constitution for choosing, poorly (for something that cannot be given).

Why is it a poor choice? In whose opinion? Who says it is a choice? That is the way they roll...

Christ your logic is flawed. Doesn't take into account basic human rights.

That aside, maybe your constitution needs another amendment

 

[JakeStarkey]

logical4u, the 14th Amendment undermines all of your arguments. SCOTUS is not going to rule against universal marriage. The latest thing the hetero community will do is to try to get this issue in front of SCOTUS. The second that happens, if say Texas demands DOMA act be invoked, the issue is over. The overwhelmingly Catholic conservative court (that must tick you wack Christians on the far right that somehow believe Catholics are not Christians: what a bunch of stupids) will invalidate DOMA and guarantee universal marriage.

 

[bripat9643]

logical4u, the 14th Amendment undermines all of your arguments. SCOTUS is not going to rule against universal marriage. The latest thing the hetero community will do is to try to get this issue in front of SCOTUS. The second that happens, if say Texas demands DOMA act be invoked, the issue is over. The overwhelmingly Catholic conservative court (that must tick you wack Christians on the far right that somehow believe Catholics are not Christians: what a bunch of stupids) will invalidate DOMA and guarantee universal marriage.

Could explain why, as you claim, you are in the Republican Party? You've never posted a single position that resembles anything a typical Republican supports.

 

[Seawytch]

Do you "choose" to have sex? Do you "choose" a sexual partner? Sounds like "choice" to me. Just sayin' ....

Do you read what you are replying to AT ALL? Sexual Orientation isn't a choice...the only choice is in ACTING upon your natural inclinations.

That would be my point. You "choose" to act on your natural inclinations.
Only the "natural inclinations" of sexual immorality are encouraged. You are discouraged to act on "natural inclinations" of: stealing, doing physical harm to others, overeating, under exercising, smoking, murdering, etc.
Please, explain why "natural instincts" of sexual attraction are the only ones to which you should completely surrender.

My natural sexual attractions do not cause harm to another person. It is your OPINION that my natural inclinations are "immoral". Most people don't feel that way.

 

[Vanquish]

logical4u, the 14th Amendment undermines all of your arguments. SCOTUS is not going to rule against universal marriage. The latest thing the hetero community will do is to try to get this issue in front of SCOTUS. The second that happens, if say Texas demands DOMA act be invoked, the issue is over. The overwhelmingly Catholic conservative court (that must tick you wack Christians on the far right that somehow believe Catholics are not Christians: what a bunch of stupids) will invalidate DOMA and guarantee universal marriage.

Could explain why, as you claim, you are in the Republican Party? You've never posted a single position that resembles anything a typical Republican supports.

Proof that when you don't have a leg to stand on...you attack the person.

Brit, you're so cute.

 

[Seawytch]

I did not ask about "millions" (though I doubt the number is that high). I specifically asked about you. I do not have access to those "millions". You told us you had five. Were they all made artificially (since you brought it up)?

The only sex involved in the creation of my children, was between my same-sex partner and I. (Unless you count the masturbation of our donor as "sex")

I had two children through artificial insemination with a known donor and then had three babies using IVF for another couple as a surrogate.

So, yes, all were made "artificially"...just like millions of men and women across the country.

From the CDC (I trust you've heard of them)

• Number of women ages 15-44 with impaired fecundity (impaired ability to have children): 7.3 million
• Percent of women ages 15-44 with impaired fecundity: 11.8%
• Number of married women ages 15-44 that are infertile (unable to get pregnant for at least 12 consecutive months): 2.1 million
• Percent of married women ages 15-44 that are infertile: 7.4%
• Number of women ages 15-44 who have ever used infertility services: 7.3 million

Gee, where to go with that one. You are physically, emotionally and mentally different than the opposite sex. Each brings strengths from their gender to the partnership. People of the same sex have individual strengths, but they are not the same.

Oh, so you have a basis for your comparison? You've been in both a same sex and opposite sex relationship and feel you can speak with some authority on this?

Thanks for clearing up that it is just your uninformed opinion that we are operating on here. Very good to know.

You want to commit yourself to another, that is fine. To claim you are married is a falsehood. You can pretend the definition includes "same sex" couples all day long, but most will reject your "pretend" marriage outright. And those that you think support you will use the "slurs" used to describe you as insults against heterosexuals of their opposing political party.

Not paying attention to the world around you are you?

For First Time, Majority of Americans Favor Legal Gay Marriage

And the opposition is coming from OLDER voters...you know, the ones that will die off eventually.

Do you realize that if we had waited for public opinion to favor interracial marriage, that it would not have passed majority support until the 1990s?

This is why we don't vote on minority rights.

There is NO DIFFERENCE between my relationship and that of a heterosexual couple, none.

I get up, kiss my spouse and the kids goodbye, head off to work where I spend 8 hours of my day and then get to return home where a hot meal is waiting for me. See, my partner stays home with our children. After dinner we might work on homework with the kids, watch a movie or play a game. We send them to bed, spend a little time together and then head off to bed ourselves...to start the whole thing over again the next day.

We've been together for 15 years so that, of course, means sex on special occasions like anniversaries and birthdays.

How is my relationship different?

Oh, and I have a legal marriage license from the State of California...and so far, nobody has said it isn't valid or said I wasn't actually married.

That is very different than the homosexual activists that are actively seeking to silence those with religious beliefs. The activists are seeking to "ruin" anyone that publicly, disagrees with them.

You are funny...

 

[JakeStarkey]

logical4u, the 14th Amendment undermines all of your arguments. SCOTUS is not going to rule against universal marriage. The latest thing the hetero community will do is to try to get this issue in front of SCOTUS. The second that happens, if say Texas demands DOMA act be invoked, the issue is over. The overwhelmingly Catholic conservative court (that must tick you wack Christians on the far right that somehow believe Catholics are not Christians: what a bunch of stupids) will invalidate DOMA and guarantee universal marriage.

Could explain why, as you claim, you are in the Republican Party? You've never posted a single position that resembles anything a typical Republican supports.

Lower taxes? Shared tax burden by all Americans? Defense of Israel? Civil liberties, including religious liberties? Many other points.

You, on the other hand, sound like a Righty Extremist Fascist who loves being made to look a jerk.

 

[Dr Grump]

logical4u, the 14th Amendment undermines all of your arguments. SCOTUS is not going to rule against universal marriage. The latest thing the hetero community will do is to try to get this issue in front of SCOTUS. The second that happens, if say Texas demands DOMA act be invoked, the issue is over. The overwhelmingly Catholic conservative court (that must tick you wack Christians on the far right that somehow believe Catholics are not Christians: what a bunch of stupids) will invalidate DOMA and guarantee universal marriage.

Could explain why, as you claim, you are in the Republican Party? You've never posted a single position that resembles anything a typical Republican supports.

Lower taxes? Shared tax burden by all Americans? Defense of Israel? Civil liberties, including religious liberties? Many other points.

You, on the other hand, sound like a Righty Extremist Fascist who loves being made to look a jerk.

bout sums him up

 

[logical4u]

logical4u, the 14th Amendment undermines all of your arguments. SCOTUS is not going to rule against universal marriage. The latest thing the hetero community will do is to try to get this issue in front of SCOTUS. The second that happens, if say Texas demands DOMA act be invoked, the issue is over. The overwhelmingly Catholic conservative court (that must tick you wack Christians on the far right that somehow believe Catholics are not Christians: what a bunch of stupids) will invalidate DOMA and guarantee universal marriage.

When that happens, say good bye to this great nation. At that point anyone with access to a lawyer will legislate what "they" want from the bench. The country will split and the nations will crumble. Bet you can hardly wait.

 

[logical4u]

Do you read what you are replying to AT ALL? Sexual Orientation isn't a choice...the only choice is in ACTING upon your natural inclinations.

That would be my point. You "choose" to act on your natural inclinations.
Only the "natural inclinations" of sexual immorality are encouraged. You are discouraged to act on "natural inclinations" of: stealing, doing physical harm to others, overeating, under exercising, smoking, murdering, etc.
Please, explain why "natural instincts" of sexual attraction are the only ones to which you should completely surrender.

My natural sexual attractions do not cause harm to another person. It is your OPINION that my natural inclinations are "immoral". Most people don't feel that way.

Oh, how you avoid. I asked you about how your children were conceived, since you wanted to tell us just how fertile you were. You still have not answered the question. One problem with "homosexual acts" is the absolute deceit that goes with "homosexual acts". In my experience, if someone lies about their sex life (I prefer: that is private and I do not speak of it), or wants to brag about how great their partner is, they are usually dishonest in most other aspects of their life also. I work in an industrial environment. If you are communicating, it had better be clear and concise. Another person's life may depend on getting to the point quickly, and truthfully.
Now you have "acted" like you are open and honest about your relationship, but when the hard question is asked, you just clam up. I probably would not have asked if you didn't go on about how homosexuals have children. You still have not given a "rational" answer on that either. If they are "the same" as heterosexuals, then they would want to have each other's children. It would be crystal clear going into the relationship that they could not do that. For a majority of heterosexuals, that would put an end to the relationship: if they knew the other person could not help procreate with them. IMHO, most heterosexuals are married and trying to have children long before they find out that they can't. Because "family" is so important, they will go thru some tough measures to have children of their own. In many instances, a heterosexual couple will adopt after years of trying to have children, and once there is a child in their home, they conceive. That, again is impossible with homosexuals.
As far as "immoral" goes: if you have multiple sex partners, and deceive to get them, you are acting immorally. As far as "you are not hurting anybody", spy on "your" children some time when they are venting to a friend, you might be surprised at how much you are hurting others. If you do not want to deal with the fact that you and your partner, being the same sex are extremely different from a heterosexual couple, then you might not be considering the damage your lifestyle is doing to your children's mental health, either.

 

[Soggy in NOLA]

Do you read what you are replying to AT ALL? Sexual Orientation isn't a choice...the only choice is in ACTING upon your natural inclinations.

That would be my point. You "choose" to act on your natural inclinations.
Only the "natural inclinations" of sexual immorality are encouraged. You are discouraged to act on "natural inclinations" of: stealing, doing physical harm to others, overeating, under exercising, smoking, murdering, etc.
Please, explain why "natural instincts" of sexual attraction are the only ones to which you should completely surrender.

My natural sexual attractions do not cause harm to another person. It is your OPINION that my natural inclinations are "immoral". Most people don't feel that way.

Immoral? Nah. Unnatural.. yes indeed.

 

[JakeStarkey]

logical4u, the 14th Amendment undermines all of your arguments. SCOTUS is not going to rule against universal marriage. The latest thing the hetero community will do is to try to get this issue in front of SCOTUS. The second that happens, if say Texas demands DOMA act be invoked, the issue is over. The overwhelmingly Catholic conservative court (that must tick you wack Christians on the far right that somehow believe Catholics are not Christians: what a bunch of stupids) will invalidate DOMA and guarantee universal marriage.

When that happens, say good bye to this great nation. At that point anyone with access to a lawyer will legislate what "they" want from the bench. The country will split and the nations will crumble. Bet you can hardly wait.

non sequitur. And you demonstrate a manifest inability to critically think.

 

[Patrick2]

Re the OP: The reason I oppose gay marriage is because it's them trying to hijack a heterosexual institution, that at least in the western tradition has always been for heterosexuals. I have nothing against gays, and they can screw each other blind for all I care. It's when they get this in your face pushiness and demand special privileges that irks me. The reason they want "gay marriage" is to try to force heterosexuals to view them as normal, to respect them.

 

[JakeStarkey]

I wonder if the bisexual Greek city states used Patrick2's arguments to the new Christian religion.

 

[logical4u]

I did not ask about "millions" (though I doubt the number is that high). I specifically asked about you. I do not have access to those "millions". You told us you had five. Were they all made artificially (since you brought it up)?

The only sex involved in the creation of my children, was between my same-sex partner and I. (Unless you count the masturbation of our donor as "sex")

I had two children through artificial insemination with a known donor and then had three babies using IVF for another couple as a surrogate.

So, yes, all were made "artificially"...just like millions of men and women across the country.

From the CDC (I trust you've heard of them)

• Number of women ages 15-44 with impaired fecundity (impaired ability to have children): 7.3 million
• Percent of women ages 15-44 with impaired fecundity: 11.8%
• Number of married women ages 15-44 that are infertile (unable to get pregnant for at least 12 consecutive months): 2.1 million
• Percent of married women ages 15-44 that are infertile: 7.4%
• Number of women ages 15-44 who have ever used infertility services: 7.3 million

Gee, where to go with that one. You are physically, emotionally and mentally different than the opposite sex. Each brings strengths from their gender to the partnership. People of the same sex have individual strengths, but they are not the same.

Oh, so you have a basis for your comparison? You've been in both a same sex and opposite sex relationship and feel you can speak with some authority on this?

Thanks for clearing up that it is just your uninformed opinion that we are operating on here. Very good to know.

You want to commit yourself to another, that is fine. To claim you are married is a falsehood. You can pretend the definition includes "same sex" couples all day long, but most will reject your "pretend" marriage outright. And those that you think support you will use the "slurs" used to describe you as insults against heterosexuals of their opposing political party.

Not paying attention to the world around you are you?

For First Time, Majority of Americans Favor Legal Gay Marriage

And the opposition is coming from OLDER voters...you know, the ones that will die off eventually.

Do you realize that if we had waited for public opinion to favor interracial marriage, that it would not have passed majority support until the 1990s?

This is why we don't vote on minority rights.

There is NO DIFFERENCE between my relationship and that of a heterosexual couple, none.

I get up, kiss my spouse and the kids goodbye, head off to work where I spend 8 hours of my day and then get to return home where a hot meal is waiting for me. See, my partner stays home with our children. After dinner we might work on homework with the kids, watch a movie or play a game. We send them to bed, spend a little time together and then head off to bed ourselves...to start the whole thing over again the next day.

We've been together for 15 years so that, of course, means sex on special occasions like anniversaries and birthdays.

How is my relationship different?

Oh, and I have a legal marriage license from the State of California...and so far, nobody has said it isn't valid or said I wasn't actually married.

That is very different than the homosexual activists that are actively seeking to silence those with religious beliefs. The activists are seeking to "ruin" anyone that publicly, disagrees with them.

You are funny...

I am sorry. I get it. When it comes to your "emotions", science and facts mean nothing. Your beliefs that indoctinating children to immoral behavior is a good thing will not be moved. You have your artificial life and call it normal. There is no rational thought for society, for the country, for morals, for honor. Everything should be based on the "wants" of small groups and forced onto society. I feel very sad for the "children's" future.